JUDGMENT :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

1. This Court vide order 25.03.2022 issued notice to the opposite party No. 2. Office report dated 11.04.2022 indicates that notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 through legal heirs as per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar dated 08.04.2022. Thereafter, the case was again taken up on 11.04.2022. Today when the case is being taken up in the revised call, even no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2, nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. It appears that opposite party No. 2 is not interested to contest the case.

2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is on the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist denied the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally.

5. Heard Shri Sushil Shukla, Advocate, assisted by Shri Aditya Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Vinay Prakash Sahu, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

6. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar in Criminal